On January 20, Commonweal offered two opinions on clericalism in the church, and what, if anything, should be done.
Clericalism infects the other Christian churches to a lesser degree and variously, but the Roman Church has simply collapsed under its weight. (William Shea)
William Shea, who teaches Religious Studies at Holy Cross, argues that the Church is in such a bad way that a radical solution is needed - eliminating clericalism by getting to the roots of it: drop the [man-made] notion that clergy are marked with an ontological sign, remove the accoutrements of office in the clergy (clothing etc), and restore governance to THE church, which includes all followers of Christ, not simply Roman Catholics.
His argument is countered by David Cloutier, who, unsurprisingly, pretty much defends the status quo.
I have drastically edited Mr. Shea's article, and I have not included Mr. Cloutier's at all, due to space limitations. The full article may be found at
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/imagine-theres-no-clergy
The edited text of Mr. Shea's proposal is in the next post.
I would be interested in the thoughts of others here.
My thoughts:
ReplyDelete1. These discussions are entirely moot. The Vatican could find my number in the book and call me (or Shea or Cloutier) if it wanted input on de- or super-sacramentalization in the Church. The Vatican is not concerned with what we think.
2. I have never believed in the "one,true Church" notion re Catholicism. If I selected a church in my area based on the degree to which its adherents followed Jesus Christ, I would worship at the Salvation Army Citadel.
3. I do believe that the traditions of catholicism, Roman and Orthodox, are essential to the continuance of Christianity. Their liturgies, saints, art, historical documents, sacraments, etc., are a necessary repository of wisdom and holiness that are the locus around which other sects revolve. Most Protestants use "how we are not Catholic" as a starting point in defining themselves. Without catholicism, Protestantism has no meaning.
4. Catholicism offers a uniquely tactile and sensual religious experience. In the stripped-down Unitarian church in which I was raised, there were lots of ideas, but no reassurance that God was near through things you could hear, touch, smell, taste, or see. Are these things essential to discipleship in Christ? I don't think so. But, for me, they are signs that Christ is with us and hears our prayers.
5. Catholicism is in trouble because it relies on absolutist teachings made more rigid by the doctrine of infallibility (without which the Church did just fine for more than 1800 years). Here's a personal example. People with my type of cancer have to take an oral chemo for the rest of their lives. They are told to use condoms to avoid giving partners an unwanted dose of chemo, and that the chemo causes severe birth defects. A married Roman Catholic woman in childbearing years clearly finds herself in an impossible situation re openness to life teaching. Women in the Orthodox or Anglican churches are not boxed into these impossible expectations.
6. All Christian sects, including Catholicism, need to look at the extent to which they promote or denigrate Christian values in the eyes of unbelievers and skeptics. Our Young People see churches, generally, as hangouts of sanctimonious haters of sex, poor people, addicts, and others who are beyond the pale. They are mistaken, of course. But churches have, so far, not found a way to tap into the vast reserves of compassion the unchurched have to offer.
Jean, good thoughts. Especially your point 4, about Catholicism offering a "uniquely tactile and sensual religious experience." Coincidentally My husband just got home from helping with "round 6" of blessing people's throats; yesterday being the feast of St. Blaise. They had the blessing of throats after all the Masses this weekend. The pastor offered a general blessing at the end of Mass to the congregation "for those who needed to leave." Barely anyone did. Most of them came forward for the individual blessing in which the priest or deacon placed his hand on their head and held the crossed candles at their throats. Ash Wednesday is in 10 days, and Mass on that day will be better attended than any of the official holy days of obligation. And everyone will come forward for the ashes on their forhead, and "Remember that you are dust..."
DeleteWe were discussing why people seem to connect with these rituals, even though they are in no way obligatory, and are sacramentals rather than sacraments. I think the human touch is important to people. Plus the bar is set really low for participation, no one has to worry about whether they are in good enough standing, or are properly catechized, or even if they are Catholic. It's come one, come all. I wish there were more of that.
I always go to the Episcopalians for my ashes. It is a joyful and messy service, with ashes and bread crumbs strewn about (the kids make the communion bread, and it crumbles up as it is dispersed, and tracked back to the pews. As if Jesus is following us), all of us united and marked in a common humanity that includes the death of the body.
DeleteOne thing I am in agreement with William Shea is his statement; "Neither lower nor higher clergy are exempt from the laws and mores of the societies in which they minister, nor should they be “protected” when they abuse their congregants. When they commit crimes, they should be treated as criminals."
ReplyDeleteBut I can't agree with his "wreck it" take on desacralizing the Church. For one thing, why reinvent the wheel? There are bazillion churches out there which don't have an ordained clergy, sacraments, or any belief in a magisterium. I certainly have no quarrel with anyone who who wants join one of those communities for their own peace of mind and soul.
I found myself in more agreement with David Cloutier's article. As he pointed out, "The problem of abusing power and authority doesn't depend on fancy dress or claims about ontological character." And, "...the sacraments are ultimately actions of God and the church as a whole, and not the charisms of individuals, their personal gifts, or even their morality."
I generally agree, though it sometimes grates to listen to some man banging on condescendingly about the lesson we are to take away from stories about women, as in today's gospel. All they seem to come up with is that their sainted mothers got up out of a sick bed to tend to their responsibilities, so let's appreciate the humble kitchen services women perform. This usually ends in a round of applause for the lady who makes the after-Mass coffee.
DeleteOne yearns (more often as I get older) to hear how women might break these words open for us instead of the all-male hierarchs.
I can think of several women saints who got up offa sick beds and immediately began serving people in many different ways. When the all-male preaching gets to me, I say a prayer for their stupidity and contemplate St. Julian of Norwich.
My take-away thought from both the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, and the daughter of Jairus (I always thought Talitha was a pretty name, though I guess it just means "little girl") was that the gospel writer wanted to make it plain that they were healed completely and instantly. Not that they were going to convalesce for two weeks, and then maybe get back to normal.
DeleteThe Greek word 'to minister" which is related to the noun deacon occurs five times in Mark.
Delete1:13 He was in the desert forty days and the angels ministered unto him
1:31 immediately the fever left her and she ministered onto them
10:45 the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto but to minister and give his life
15:41 the women at the foot of the cross used to follow him and minister to him when he was in Galilee
Just as Mark frames the Gospel with the Voice from the Father at Jesus Baptism and Transfiguration, followed by Jesus voice shattering the veil of the temple at his Crucifixion,
Mark has the women (and only women) imitating Jesus by doing from the beginning to the end of Jesus ministry what he said he had come into the world to do in the middle of the Gospel.
Most commentators say that Mark has a rather dim view of the disciples who are the nearest thing we have to clergy in his Gospel. The women and many others "follow" Jesus but are not call disciples.
Disciple is used in two senses in the NT, as apprentices to a teacher, and as a term for believers (in Acts). It is interesting that Paul never uses the word, probably because he unlike the rest of the apostles did not serve an apprenticeship with Jesus.
When Matthew and Luke repeat Mark about disciples, they systematically soften Mark's criticisms. Mark is a good gospel to begin to criticize the tendencies to clericalism in Christian life.
Anne, thanks for this post, as it spurred me to read both articles. I knew they were out there but kept putting off diving into them.
ReplyDeleteI can't agree with Shea's proposal. If George Orwell taught us anything, it's that overthrowing one clergy only leads to another rising in its place.
Cloutier's response is brilliant, and much-needed. I wonder how many clergy ever think of themselves as taking part in a sacramentalization of the world? My guess is, very few. Cloutier should travel around to gatherings of bishops, priests and deacons and do workshops on this topic.
I met with our RCIA candidates and sponsors yesterday to talk about Catholic social teaching. As part of the discussion we talked about contemporary issues to which Catholic social teaching is applicable - everything from immigration to how prisoners are treated to the #MeToo movement. Reading Shea's and Cloutier's articles, it struck me that what we did yesterday is, in a tiny and modest way, a contribution to re-sacralizing the world. I would build on one of Cloutier's points and note that the laity need to be the leaders in this work. The clergy have a role to play, but being a sacrament for the world is where laypersons need to take the lead - even to be willing to suffer for the sake of trying to build up the kingdom. I think of the generation of labor organizers who first dared to organize American workers. They suffered for the sake of building the kingdom.
"I would build on one of Cloutier's points and note that the laity need to be the leaders in this work. The clergy have a role to play, but being a sacrament for the world is where laypersons need to take the lead - even to be willing to suffer for the sake of trying to build up the kingdom."
DeleteThat sounds nice, but, like most theological ideas, I have a hard time understanding how this plays out in real life. How would we see lay people leading the way in re-sacralizing the world, even "suffering to build the kingdom"?
Are you saying they're not doing enough because they're not suffering enough or what? Not trying to be combative, just trying to see if you're on to something I should pay attention to.
Thanks.
I agree with the idea that we laypeople should by spiritual leaders in the world, in our families, our communities and our workplaces.
DeleteI found working in the public mental health system to be a very spiritual experience, but not a very religious experience.
A central theme of my work was affirming the dignity and worth of the mentally ill, especially empowering them to take leadership roles in the mental health system.
At my retirement the local mental health board established an award for achievement by the mentally ill and named it after me. Essentially they told the mentally ill they were going to continue do what I had done.
Although I am sure some Catholics understood the social justice background to my work, and some Christians understood the Gospel underpinnings, I never came close to preaching in words. Now quite a few people knew that I studied theology at ND, and people knew I was very literate in that area as well as psychology, sociology, history and quite a few other things.
The sign that I enacted was in deeds more than words, e.g. the leadership program I designed for the mentally ill was modeled on the leadership program designed for the elite of our county. I was also my very intellectual self with the mentally ill who appreciated that I did not try to "dumb things down" for them but treated them as intelligent people worthy of my best thinking.
While my spiritual and intellectual leadership was well know in the health care system (the hospital vp for planning called me a one person think tank) this has been completely ignored by the parish and the diocese, to the great disadvantage of Catholicism. I am very sure that if I had been invited to talk on about anything at a Catholic parish, there would have been many people who would have been interested. However because our parishes are unwilling to recognize the spiritual leadership we exercise in the world, it fails to become religious leadership, i.e. it is not attributed to Catholicism. I was seen as somebody who did what I did from deep personal convictions, but their relationship to Catholicism was unclear.
I pretty sure there are many others in the same boat as I was, i.e. because our leadership in the world is neither ordained nor paid for by the Church it is not recognized as Catholic leadership. If the church does not recognize it as Catholic then why should any one else.
Don't feel badly, Jack, you're in good company. A woman who was the former president of Ireland, and had studied canon law at the Gregorian University in Rome was disinvited by the Powers That Be from being a featured speaker at the People of Faith conference which was to be held at the Vatican. The tables were turned, though, now the conference isn't going to be at the Vatican, and she is the keynote speaker
Delete""That sounds nice, but, like most theological ideas, I have a hhard time understanding how this plays out in real life. How would we see lay people leading the way in re-sacralizing the world, even "suffering to build the kingdom"?""
ReplyDeleteI think it happens all around us already, although more can be done.
Whenever a journalist brings to light something that those in power hoped to hide in darkness; whenever a teacher helps a classroom of children grow and develop; whenever a doctor or nurse or therapist treats someone who is ill or in pain; whenever an attorney represents someone who was mistreated by a powerful person or corporation; whenever a social worker helps a single mom to cope with the stresses of three children and two jobs - all of these are examples of building the kingdom, a brick at a time.
A mom who stays up all night with a sick child out of love for the child is suffering. People who act in countercultural ways for the sake of the kingdom can suffer for it. Whistleblowers get fired. Protesters get arrested. #MeToo victims put their careers in jeopardy. Death penalty protesters, anti-abortion activists and those who speak up against climate change are subject to scorn and revilement. Those who go overseas to war zones to care for the wounded and refugees get shot at.
All the things you mention were hammered home to me in the Unitarian Church. So what you're suggesting as sacralizing the world at-large is not uniquely Catholic.
DeleteSo why be Catholic?
Perhaps one answer is that Catholicism nourishes us through the sacraments, which are meant to inspire and strengthen us to do God's work? Perhaps Catholic parishes need to go further to ensure that people understand the purpose of the sacraments? Perhaps Catholic parishes need to provide more venues through which we can do God's work?
I realize I'm hogging this thread and that people are sick of hearing about my parish's Church ladies and risk being told to take a break, the recent series on "how to correctly receive communion" in our bulletin helps me understand why Catholics like Shea are fed up with clericalism and the scrupulosity re forms and rubrics that stem from that clericalism.
The bulletin's series on communion includes diagrams of how hands and tongues are to be positioned, as well as instructions for when to bow, how loud to say "Amen" after receiving," and do's and don'ts once you have the Host in your hand/mouth to ensure you get back to your pew in an orderly fashion.
Raber tried to hide the bulletin from me because he knew it would set me off. But I don't know how these types of scolding reminders do anything for Catholics other than let you know that the Church Lady EM's are happy to make you feel inadequate. The implication is that your failure to make the correct gestures negates the effects of the sacrament.
Which is one of the reasons I'd rather just stand in my pew, ask God to bless me, and not subject myself to the Central Scrutinizers.
Jean,
DeleteI don't know how you put up with your parish. I am very fortunate that the Divine Office has been a part of my life since about 8th grade. If I ever end up in your position, with nothing but a lousy parish, I am sure that like the monks who lived in the desert I won't be heading to the village for Mass very soon.
Of course as a ND alumnus I can also view the live Catholic TV on the internet, which I often do when the Lake effect snows kick in.
Of course as a very intellectual person I suspect I could make your pastor and your church ladies as miserable as they make you.
Jean, your comment kind of touches on what I said previously about the popularity of the blessing of throats and the receiving of ashes (I don't know, maybe those things aren't so popular in other people's parishes). Nobody cares how one goes up for the blessing or the ashes. There isn't a wrong way to do it. I suppose a certain reverence is expected. This would also seem to me to be the proper demeanor for receiving the Eucharist; reverence and a right intention. The scrupulosity takes me back to the 1950s, and not in a good way. Back then they used to tell you not to touch the Host with your teeth, and Lord help you if you ever touched it with your hands. I do give the Sister who instructed us for First Communion credit that she said if your teeth do touch the Host, it's no big deal, but try not to. I was glad when things lightened up after VII, and I hope we're not backsliding back to that kind of legalism. Seems like the church ladies shouldn't be the ones deciding how these things are done.
DeleteI kind of think the point of a Christian life is not to make people as miserable as they make me. Which is a good reminder to stop blabbering on here about the awfulness of my parish. It will close when Father dies (he is on hospice), and then Raber will have to be open to moving to a new church.
Delete"All the things you mention were hammered home to me in the Unitarian Church. So what you're suggesting as sacralizing the world at-large is not uniquely Catholic."
DeleteRight. But is that a bad thing? Different Christian denominations *do* believe many things in common - more so than the things that divide us. It seems entirely possible to me that a more sacramental approach could goose the ecumenical project forward as well.
What that gooses is secular humanism, no? That is, God is not necessary to human decency, which quickly reduces to, "It's all OK as long as you're not hurting anyone," which can be rationalized in a lot of ways.
DeleteOn the one hand, I have a very liberal notion of salvation. If I didn't, I would have to believe that my dad, grandmother, and two miscarried infants were boiling in oil in hell. I hope I'm right.
On the other hand, it matters to me, despite my apostasy, that the RC/Orthodox churches survive in ways that uphold their traditions. I believe it matters that there are religious brothers and sisters who pray for the world, that there is a collective recognition of those who are in the communion of saints, and that the Church preserves the tactile expression of religious experience through liturgy and art.
The Church need not turn to Protestantism and the "primitive church" to solve the clericalism problem because the Church is not one long unbroken line of Tradition, but has strands of many traditions woven together--married priests, voluntary celibates, popular acclamation of saints and bishops, groups that sprang up from the faithful to serve God and each other (like the Beghards and the beguines and the Catholic Worker). All or any of these could be resurrected in new ways.
Protestantism, at its heart, is about marginalizing God to Sundays, making rules about personal piety, and husbanding money and resources to maintain good, plain bourgeois standards. Nothing wrong with that if all you want to serve are good, plain bourgeois people.
Catholicism, at least through the Catholics that I know, is about sharing God and his gifts with everybody, all the time, every day, with a generous heart, even with profligacy.
I don't know. Maybe it's illness and my time of life, but I continue as a nominal Catholic despite the Church Ladies because I believe in what the Church might/will become. I'm not out there fighting the good fight to make it so. But I am cheering from them sidelines in hope
A great accomplishment is to be religious without having a big buzzy bug up your ass.
ReplyDeleteLOL, Stanley, I agree!
DeleteHow about not being religious, but having a big buzzy bug up your ass about it? If so, olly olly oxen free!
DeleteWell, it seems that everyone here agrees with Cloutier.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many in the church - including to some degree anyway, Francis - that clericalism is a dangerous disease that is slowly destroying the church. It is a disease that has already severely sickened the church in the west, is infecting more and more people in Latin America, and will eventually hit the third world countries, once they develop economically beyond the current status (education is in some ways the biggest threat to the midaevil mindset and operating procedures of the RC church). So.....
Next question. If Shea's proposals are too radical for those who read this board (literally cutting back to the roots that produced clericalism and starting over) then how can clericalism in the church be "cured"?
Cloutier does not propose any solutions, he merely restates current understandings and defends the status quo.
As Jean has noted, Jim's list of the ways ordinary people are "sacraments" in the world does not simply describe Roman Catholics. I know lots of people who live that way - christians, Jewish, unbelievers.
Since you all have rejected Shea's approach, does anyone have any ideas on how the cancer of clericalism in the Roman church can be "cured" without some kind of radical treatmet, at least a partial dismantling of the authoritarian, all male, control structure?
Is even the small symbolic step of simplifying the clothing ( cf. the Anglicans - fancy garb for big occasions, but not as ornate, and no ring kissing)too much? Even Francis has pushed for that.
Would getting rid of the notion of ontological superiority of the ordained class in the church be too much for you all?
This notion, combined with the absolute absence of ANY voice in defining doctrines and in the highest level governance of the church for the 99.99999% who are not ordained may be the most important step of all. The priesthood of all believers - for real.
As far as sacraments go, in the very early years, people met in homes, and the bread and wine were shared without the requirement of having an "ordained" person present. There were no "holy" hands and the rules for consuming these food items were not the focus of absurd rules.
Jesus did not create the hierarchy of what eventually became the RC church. Men created it and men are still desperately holding on to their power and privileges, while wringing their hands and flailing about trying to find ways to "increase attendance at mass". Some of the laity are infected with the same disease - Jean's Church Ladies for example, and they too are driving people into becoming "nones" and "dones".
Jean's experiences are shared by millions of Catholics and former Catholics and Jean needs to keep talking about them, as her parish is not at all unique. Jean is plenty intellectual, and extremely articulate, but when dealing with "foolish people" who have "eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear" it doesn't really matter. I'm quite sure she could make her pastor and the Church Ladies quite miserable, but she is taking the high road! Maybe a little less time in the mythical place called "purgatory" for that, Jean.
By sharing the Church Lady stories, maybe a few people in a few places, including those who read but do not comment, will open their eyes to what is happening, and perhaps they will begin to see that a different, more christian, approach is needed to at least "arrest" the progress of the disease. A cure will have to wait on that happening first.
So, what can be done?
Anne - I agree that Cloutier didn't propose a specific program for reducing clericalism. But he did make some telling points against some of Shea's proposals which you've presented here.
ReplyDeleteCloutier's basic point seems to be that the clergy - and to some extent the church as a whole - needs to adopt a more sacramental conception of the church. A true adoption of that conception would reduce clericalism.
Clericalism can only change when clergy change their behavior and attitudes.
Clericalism can only change when clergy change their behavior and attitudes.
ReplyDeleteSo, how is that to come about? Especially since studies of the younger generations of priests done by the CU group of researchers indicates that these men are very fond of the idea of their "ontological superiority" to the mere laity in the pews, and very attached also to the externals - clothing etc. All in all, most would rather return to the pre-Vatican II concept of church and have no interest whatsoever in giving up their own privileges and power and perqs. The future bishops will be chosen from this group too. Francis is trying to appoint bishops with a different mindset, but unless his successor is more of his mindset that of his predecessors, they won't be enough to make a difference.
Cloutier's eloquent discussion of extending a "sacramental conception" of church seems to be simply an abstract concept which is really little more than wishful thinking.
Ooh! "Jean needs to keep talking." Anne said it. So here goes:
ReplyDeleteHow can "clericalism" be tempered?
I think the clerics are doing it themselves through bad behavior and attrition. Two priests in our diocese are up on embezzlement charges, one less straightforward than the other but likely to go to court), one was relieved to go to alcoholic rehab, several are foreign and speak English so badly that they have been marginalized by the parish council (sad, of course, but African priests are never going to make in this area), and one is an obnoxious egomaniac who puts photos of himself with his high-powered weaponry on Facebook. Putting these guys in fancy vestments does not elevate them, and my guess is that parishes will be less likely to dress them up in the future.
The old Vat2 priests are dying, and many parishes are learning that they can survive with a deacon or nun as administrator.
In my time as an Episcopalian, I found that married priests were slightly less full of themselves, at least when their wives were around. Self-agrandizement is difficult for the wedded clergy. They don't make better priests so much as that they have a partner who usually prevents excesses. (Of course, there are wives who are insufferable.) Is there anyone who thinks the priest crisis can be solved with celibate young men anymore? I sure don't.
A weakened clergy weakens bishops; ours spends most of his time playing golf with young men in whom he hopes to help discern vocations. He even has a logo for these events: a little golfball on a tee wearing a mitre. It is really hard to take the man seriously, especially when the bishop emeritus is more or less a saint whose cancer got better and who now devotes most of his time to Cristo Rey in Lansing. Bishop by popular acclaim, which is the earlier tradition of the Church may make a comeback.
I see the Holy Spirit at work here, helping the Church survive while returning to older RC traditions.
What I see happening at the parish level is a push-pull between the entrenched, raised-in-Catholic-school-by-mean-nuns Cradle Catholics like the Church Ladies, and people like Raber, who find the Catholic-culture-of-yore talk irrelevant and annoying.
I encourage him to keep pushing his ideas such as how about we give money to send the confirmation kids to Detroit to learn about St. Solanus Casey instead of taking out another $10k CD? He is a good man, and the Church needs him. Sadly, it also gets me as part of the deal.
"How can "clericalism" be tempered? I think the clerics are doing it themselves through bad behavior and attrition." Jean, you've got that right. They are unfortunately burning their bridges as far as teaching about sexual morality from the high road, and by example. Even the pope seems to have trouble facing up to reality. It's depressing.
DeleteAnne said, "Cloutier's eloquent discussion of extending a "sacramental conception" of church seems to be simply an abstract concept which is really little more than wishful thinking." That is true to a large degree. However I found Shea's article a bigger exercise in wishful thinking and venting of frustration (not that he doesn't have cause), because what he proposed is nothing more than scrapping the whole thing and starting over from square one. I'm pretty sure he knows that's not going to happen. It's been done before, by everyone from Jan Hus to Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, to George Fox. What happens is they start a new group. It's like an iceberg calving. And maybe that has to happen sometimes. But then the new groups are around a few years and they get problems too.
ReplyDeleteThere are two things I wish would happen to work against clericalism. The first is for the church to admit it has a woman problem. Because they are still in denial. Various people have proposed that women can be parish administrators, financial administrators, can fill offices at chanceries, etc. Which is true. But it doesn't address the main, visible from space, problem. Which is that there are no women in decision making capacity who have any meaningful input into the rulings and decisions that affect women's lives. Oh, there is some window dressing; they cherry-pick some women with very traditional views who won't rock the boat in any way, so they can say, "See, we do consult women!" But the minute there is anything which is the least bit controversial, the bishops get the vapors and shut down any dialogue. And celibate males continue to make rulings about family life and the married state. Think of the original birth control commission, and how the recommendation of married men and women was ignored.
The second thing I wish would happen is for the subject of creeping infallibility to be addressed. Last time I checked there had been only 2 "ex cathedra" pronouncements since the doctrine of infallibility was promulgated. Those would be the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Assumption. I don't have a problem with those. But maybe we could face the idea that popes sometimes do make mistakes, or that rules which fit one time and place may need to be re-visited later. And things which fell short of actually being an ex-cathedra teaching, fell short of being an infallible statement, and which could later be re-examined.
I wrote, "Clericalism can only change when clergy change their behavior and attitudes."
ReplyDelete... to which Anne replied, "So, how is that to come about?"
I suspect it would happen in a myriad of ways. Most change in norms is intergenerational. It interested me that Shea was writing from the point of view of one who was a pre-Vatican-II seminarian. That viewpoint is legitimate, but the world and the church, and I believe the priesthood, really has changed since then. Maybe not for the better in every way: my experience of priests is that those who were young priests during the Council itself were very accepting of the "Spirit of Vatican II" and have done the most to realize it at the grassroots level. I admit I don't have much of a handle on young priests; frankly, we haven't had one assigned to our parish in the 26+ years I've been a member. I don't think the priests in Chicago are the archconservative automatons I continually read about. What is most striking to me about them is the demographics: many of them in Chicago are immigrants, and many of them are persons of color. That is very different than the nearly unbroken string of Irish American priests I had for the first 40+ years of my life.
Where I'm going with this is, the priesthood *will* change. The church itself is changing, and the cultural melange from which all priests emerge is changing. Perhaps that means that clericalism as we understand it will become a relic of the past. Or it may mean that new forms of clericalism will spring up. Honestly, I don't think the clothes matter very much, and the ontological-change thing is just a fact, we couldn't cancel it out if we wanted to. We all get changed when we're baptized, so it's not like priests have a monopoly on it. I don't think there is a direct correlation between getting ordained and behaving better. Well, obviously. But I think the church needs priests, and the movement to abolish them is misbegotten. That is not to say that reform isn't necessary. But reforming isn't the same as abolishing.
"...the priesthood *will* change. The church itself is changing, and the cultural melange from which all priests emerge is changing." Jim, I think that is true, that it's already happening. About twice a year our archdiocesan newspaper runs a story on "Our Seminarians", with the names and pictures and a brief bio. The good news is, there are actually quite a few in various stages of formation right now. And there is a nice diversity. Some started the process right after high school. More were in the working world for a few years. There are Asians, particularly Vietnamese or Korean, and Hispanics/Latinos. Not to mention Anglos. Most were born and grew up in this state. There is a young man from our parish who is nearing the home stretch. I haven't run into the biretta and cassock wearing, very traddie, types, not to say that there aren't any. I have known a couple of younger priests like that. They have left the active priesthood; they self- selected out. I think when people are there for the wrong reason they eventually recognize it. That's not to say the traditional ones couldn't make good priests. But there has to be something there besides that.
DeleteI agree with you that the clothes don't matter that much. And I had also thought about Baptism being an ontological sign, I don't have a problem with ontological signs. What I have a problem with is the weak theology (in my opinion) behind the idea that women are ontologically incapable of being ordained because of their gender.
Katherine because what he proposed is nothing more than scrapping the whole thing and starting over from square one. I'm pretty sure he knows that's not going to happen. It's been done before, by everyone from Jan Hus to Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin, to George Fox. What happens is they start a new group. It's like an iceberg calving. And maybe that has to happen sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI'm quite sure Shea knows it won't happen. This could be his ecclesial version of Swift's A Modest Proposal, meant to make people stand back and really think. Also, the problems mentioned don't mean that mean some kind of radical proposal shouldn't happen. Yes, one could say that the Protestant reformers were protesting against clericalism in a sense, and of course, they splintered also. I'm not sure that is always a bad thing, when housecleaning is needed. If the church had cleaned up some of the things Luther was protesting, the big Reformation might not have happened. Perhaps knocking down the whole structure and starting over with house churches, led by people chosen by the community, as was done in the early church, would bring about true ressourcement
I see no way that the men in charge are ever going to let women into the club, where, as you note, they MUST be if church teachings on sexuality and marriage and gender are ever to approach reality. The church needs to open the priesthood and the diaconate to married people - both men and women.
And agree with you also that the creeping infallibility is simply adding more clericalism on top of the mess.
Jean, I have observed the same thing as you about male, married Episcopal priests usually being less impressed with themselves than the wet behind the ears, self-important young Catholic priests, strutting around in cassocks all day and wearing some of the silly hats Shea refers to. (this is the case now, and has been for several years, in the two RCC parishes I formerly attended. I'm surprised Jim hasn't experienced this yet).
ReplyDeleteIn the parish I attend now, the assistant rector is a woman, and she is a really great priest also - excellent homilies and very pastoral, as is the Rector. These two speak from life, not from abstract ideas they memorized in the seminary and have to spout word for word in homilies because otherwise someone will report them as teaching heresy. Our Rector's first wife died of cancer, leaving three young children. A few years later, he married a divorced woman with a child, a lovely woman who definitely would not allow his ego to get very big! So he has been married, widowed, father, step-father, grandfather. Our Asst Rector is a single mother of a (now grown) son. She never remarried after her divorce, before she became a priest. Before becoming an Episcopalian, she had been minister at a Baptist church. Baptists are trained to give good homilies! She left that ministry because of her divorce. Eventually she was pulled by the EC, and after a while, went to Episcopal seminary to become a priest. Her homily on Mary's visit to Elizabeth, along with Fr. John's amazing homilies is what kept me going back to that church. As a single mom in her 30s then, her homily reflected a feminine understanding of this passage of scripture that would never even remotely enter the mind of any RC priest I have ever known. With these two priests, I have come to understand what TRUE complementarity in the church means. The RCC version is simply a way to try to disguise the traditional patriarchal misogny of the RC church's teachings with a lot of flower Vaticanese.
My first experience with a priest's wife occurred long before I went on strike against the RCC and started going regularly to the EC. Years and years ago our youngest son attended a very small Episcopal Day School. His older brother had attended a local Catholic school for one year that was so awful we moved him to public school for first and vowed that none of our others would ever have to go to it. The two older sons went to public school until middle school, but we were so impressed with the Episcopal school that we sent the youngest there. It went from K-3rd. Our son's best friend was the son of the Rector, so we got to know them pretty well just as the parents of our son's friend. Jessica (son's friend's mom) spent a lot of time explaining her life as wife of a priest. She was also the daughter of a priest (who eventually was a bishop) and so she knew what she was getting into as far as the unpaid job she was taking on. Believe me, just like our current pastor's wife, there was no way that she would allow her husband to grow an inflated ego, much less any sense of "ontological' superiority!
I don't think a married priesthood is a panacea. But I do think it can temper some problems. And some wives are insufferable. See Bishop and Mrs. Proudie in Trollope's "Barchester Towers." If she ain't a Church Lady, I don't know what is.
DeleteJim, I stayed in the RC pews for as long as I did because of the Vatican II priests who were pastors and assistants over the years. The cultic young European-descended priests are definitely not going to work to reduce clericalism. It is one of the things that attracts them to the priesthood. Similarly, the large number of priests now arriving from third world countries are not likely to be reformers, especially when it comes to women.
ReplyDeleteThe priests in the RC parish for years embraced VI, but they have now either died or retired. For years I was very active in the parish, and way too busy to pay attention to what JPII was doing, along with his "partner in crime", Ratzinger - to gut VII, to reinforce the church's misgony, and to push creeping infallibility. When I looked up after the intense business of the years of working and raising children were easing, I realized that the church was not still the church I had made a deliberate choice to stay in in the late 60s. I was ready to walk then, when I was 19, but a priest/theology professor spent hours and hours with me, explaining VII and convincing me that the church was getting rid of much of the nonsense I grew up with in the 50s and early 60s. The retro forces won. It still took a few years, and the sex abuse scandal added to the disturbing teachings on birth control and women, to drive me to decide I could not, in good conscience, continue to enable the dysfunction of the clericalist RCC. The RCC formed me, walking away after spending almost 60 years as an active Catholic was one of the hardest things I have done. It's taken a long time, but recently I have realized that I am more comfortable now in EC churches, than I am when I attend RC churches with family members. I had hoped Francis might be able to change enough things that I would go "home" to the RCC. But I don't think he will, and now, I really don't think I belong there anymore anyway. But obviously I do enjoy discussions with thinking Catholics [the RCC has the richest intellectual tradition of them all, as the "mother" church"], and with Catholics with doubts. like Jean and Crystal. [Where is Crystal anyway? I haven't seen a comment by her for quite a while. I would email her, but don't think I have it. Maybe someone could check to see if she's OK if they have her email.]
I will admit I don't believe in the "ontological" signs imprinted on our souls, either at baptism or for men at ordination. But, you do, so at least maybe the church could do something to undo the harm JPII/Ratzinger did with teaching new priests that this ontological sign makes them superior to all other baptized Catholics.
OK, too much commenting by me! I will leave the floor now. But I appreciate everyone's comments - this group always gives me things to think about.
I will be opening another discussion soon, though. It is related to this one, but it was the links to the Pray Tell blog in an earlier discussion (about the shrinking church, by Ruff and Rita Ferrone's article on raising church attendance) that made me begin re-reading some articles and books I have about what is going on in the world of christian religion right now - not just in the RCC.
I lost this post at one time, found it again, but didn't thoroughly edit. So "priests in the RC parish for years embraced VI," should read "the priests in the RC parishes I belonged to for years embraced VII" YES - NOT VI. Definitely not VI. Plus, "busy-ness" not "business"
ReplyDeleteAnne, I was definitely intrigued by your positive words for Vatican I priests :-). I hope to meet a Council of Florence priest some day ...
DeleteDarn. Now I've given away my true age.
Delete